1 2026:CGHC:8039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1567 of 2026 Somaru Ram Patel S/o Sonu Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Panarpara Bajawand, Police Station Nagarnaar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (As Per Charge Sheet) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Nagarnaar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 254/2025 registered at Police Station : Nagarnaar District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 64(2)(m) & 64(2) (h) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.13 16:34:46 +0530 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant and the prosecutrix were in a love relationship since the year 2023 and had been residing together as husband and wife for a considerable period. During the subsistence of the said relationship, the prosecutrix became pregnant and gave birth to a male child on 12.01.2025. It is alleged that the applicant was already married to another woman, namely Smt. Sumitra Patel, and despite being aware of this fact, the prosecutrix continued to maintain the relationship with the applicant. In support of the relationship, the prosecutrix is stated to have executed an affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper, purchased by her brother, and in the child security card issued by the Government, the name of the applicant has been recorded as the father of the child. The prosecution further states that the applicant is a vegetable vendor by occupation and, due to his pre-trial detention, his family is facing livelihood difficulties. The investigation in the matter has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court; however, the DNA report for determination of the paternity of the child, though sent for examination, has not yet been received. It is also the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was aware of the applicant’s marital status but nevertheless entered into and continued the relationship with him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the in the present crime the prosecutrix, aged about 26 years, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant since 2023 and was fully aware that the applicant was already a married man, and she resided with him for a considerable period along 3 with his earlier wife. The prosecutrix herself executed an affidavit on non-judicial stamp paper, purchased by her brother, wherein both the applicant and the prosecutrix acknowledged living as husband and wife before the Village Panchayat; the said affidavit was also placed before the court below but was not properly appreciated, and a copy of the application dated 24.01.2025 along with the affidavit is annexed as Annexure A-3. Further, in government records, including the child security card issued by the Government, the prosecutrix has mentioned the applicant as her husband and the father of the child, and a copy of the same is annexed as Annexure A-4. The prosecutrix was aware of the marital status of the applicant and voluntarily continued the relationship; however, after the birth of the child and due to certain misunderstandings, false allegations of rape have been levelled against the applicant. As per the FIR, the alleged incidents relate to the period from 10.12.2023 to 10.11.2025, during which the parties remained in a relationship for nearly two years, and the FIR has been lodged with considerable delay and with ulterior motive. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 30.11.2025, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel State opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant on the pretext of marriage established physical relationship with the victim and thereafter denied, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, and further considering the fact that the victim, being a major and known to the applicant since 2023, was in a consensual relationship with him during which a physical relationship was established, and that thereafter the relationship between the parties could not continue, consequently leading to the lodging of the present FIR, and also considering that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 30.11.2025, and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Somaru Ram Patel, involved in Crime No. 254/2025 registered at Police Station : Nagarnaar District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 64(2)(m) & 64(2)(h) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial 5 court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav